Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Bill Hanson Dawn Smith Visitors Present Gene Graf Chris Budeski Michael Cadell Joe Turnowchyk Jerry Gaston Herb Fisher ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2002 Chairperson Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 25, 2002. Hearing none, Mr. Raznoff moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW IHOP MaSP/COA #Z-02117 (Morris) Valley Center Road * A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate with Appropriateness to develop a 4,022 s.f. restaurant and related site improvements. Gene Graf, Chris Budeski, and Michael Cadell joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, and reviewed the recommended conditions. Mr. Cadell, applicant’s representative, presented the project, noting the property is pie shaped with large setbacks on two sides. He stated they incorporated the colors and materials from Gallatin Center in their design. He described various awning styles being researched. He noted the orientation of the building was researched to provide the best access, the best visibility, and the best parking arrangement. Mr. Hanson asked how the parking area calculations compare to the minimum standards in the zone code. Mr. Cadell noted they are slightly over with parking. Mr. Hanson noted traffic flow through the parking lot may not feed well into the adjoining lots. Mr. Cadell explained the rationale for the parking lot design and private street. Mr. Hanson stated the private street along Valley Center appears redundant. Planner Morris noted the Transportation 2001 Plan called for signalization of Hulbert Street at Valley Center Road, making Hulbert Street the primary access to the four lots. Mr. Hanson asked if the lots were linked in another way thereby eliminating the need for a private road. Mr. Graf explained the private drive was included to provide access to the other lots. He noted the private drive was necessary to provide access as MDT was not allowing accesses on Valley Center to be located any closer to North 19th Avenue. Planner Morris noted the private drive would be more safe than shared accesses. Mr. Budeski noted the private drive was a safety issue. Mr. Hanson asked for the height of the parapet wall. Mr. Cadell noted the parapet is 18 feet 6inches from the ground and would screen the mechanical equipment. Mr. Hanson noted the trash enclosure is in a tough spot and suggested moving it to one of the parking stalls away from the entrance. He asked if the access could be located in another location. Mr. Cadell noted they have had discussions with MDT about the location of the accesses and are continuing to do so today. Mr. Hanson suggested creating the private drive behind the buildings rather than in front of them. Mr. Budeski noted delivery vehicles would have a difficult time making deliveries if the drive was behind the buildings. Mr. Raznoff concurred with Mr. Hanson’s comments on the trash enclosure. He asked for the further delineation for the location of the future Hulburt Street. Planner Morris noted it would be on the dashed line, which is the section line, on the enclosed map. Ms. Smith asked if the newly adopted zoning ordinance has changed the calculation on parking spaces. Planner Morris explained the 125% of the minimum is allowed. Ms. Smith asked if the driving lanes would be acceptable. Planner Morris noted it would be a private drive, therefore acceptable. Ms. Smith asked how a pedestrian would get to the front door from parking located across the private drive. A sidewalk using patterned concrete was suggested. Chairperson Sorenson asked about the 50-foot setback along Valley Center Road. Planner Morris explained the required 50-foot greenway corridor. Chairperson Sorenson asked for a description of the standing seam roof. Planner Morris explained the roof, and noted staff used the comments from DRB on the former Osco application. In response to Chairperson Sorenson, who asked to view the concept diagram for the entire area, Mr. Budeski spread the diagram on the table. Mr. Hanson noted he had struggled with the private drive width, and suggested a 26-foot width to allow more landscaping. He suggested relocating the trash enclosure so pedestrians don’t have to walk around it to enter the restaurant. He noted he concurs with staff’s conditions except for the standing seam mansard roof, but didn’t offer an alternative. He strongly suggested relocating the private drive towards the west and create a shared access with the adjoining property. He suggested rotating the structure 90 degrees so the entry faces the drive access. Mr. Raznoff concurred with rotating the structure 90 degrees. He noted he couldn’t support the proposal as presented. He discussed the private drive and the access, stating that he hoped negotiations with MDT would make the project better. He stated the proposal wasn’t pedestrian friendly. He concurred with the suggestion to relocate the trash enclosure. He stated he had no problem including two towers in the design. Mr. Graf noted that locating the private drive on the Valley Center Road side of the lot was considered safer than having all the vehicular traffic flowing through the parking lots. Ms. Smith stated she supported staff’s recommended conditions. She noted condition #5 relates to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) and she stated it is important that the Board uphold what the City and citizens desire in the DOP. She concurred with rotating the building 90 degrees, relocation of the trash enclosure, and suggested continuing the sidewalk across the parking area. She suggested adding outdoor seating, making several changes on the roof, and pulling out a couple of parking spaces in the back to give more room for maneuvering. She stated she didn’t support the plan as presented. She stated she would like to see staff’s and the DRB’s recommended changes incorporated into a re-designed project and presented at a later date. The applicants concurred, stating they would rather redraw the plans, resubmit them for review, and move the hearing before City Commission to a later date. Chairperson Sorenson commented the DRB would like to see the four parcels have some sort of unity in pedestrians, parking, and drive aisle facilities. He suggested variations for parking schemes. He noted he doesn’t mind the proposed design. He suggested not adding awnings on the rear of the building if it is rotated 90 degrees. He suggested larger landscape plantings, and not aligning the access with the parking access to prevent the slowing of traffic. Mr. Cadell noted outside seating and patios weren’t a part of the IHOP design. He stated, if they have one, it is fully enclosed. He suggested a landscaped area with benches as a waiting area. Ms. Smith noted a pedestrian access to the entryway should be provided between the parking spaces at the front of the building. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Country Inn & Suites Informal #I-02020 (Morris) Valley Center Drive An Informal Application for advice and comment on a proposed hotel on Valley Center Drive. Gerry Gaston, Herb Fisher, Joe Turnowchyk joined the DRB. Mr. Turnowchyk presented color renderings of the proposed hotel and presented the proposal. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the site plan, noting the property owner wasn’t required to install the 50-foot greenway as the property had different requirements than the adjoining properties, since it was located outside the North 19th Avenue Entryway Corridor. Mr. Fisher noted negotiations with MDT have dictated where the access will be, thus requiring the interior driveway access. He noted they have drawn the driveway access across lot 1 to provide access for the adjoining lot. Mr. Turnowchyk asked the Board to consider a recommendation of approval for the 20% increase in height allowed in the entryway overlay. He noted the roof pitch is 6:12. Chairperson Sorenson commented the parking was designed shopping center style, in front of the building. He noted a pedestrian pathway between the parking lots would encourage pedestrians to walk between the businesses. He noted he was struggling with how the pool enclosure side of the building related to the interstate. Mr. Fisher noted as this is a limited service hotel pedestrian ways between businesses weren’t necessary. Mr. Turnowchyk explained the interior use of the area over the pool. Mr. Fisher noted an exterior seating area would allow sun bathing and enjoyment of the outdoors this time of year. Ms. Smith noted the design reminded her of Old Faithful Inn. She asked if the shingles could be of darker tones. Mr. Fisher noted the stone being considered is of darker colors; however, the shingles must be the green color per franchise directive. Ms. Smith concurred with Chairperson Sorenson that the building should be moved closer to the drive access, and a few parking spaces should be located to the rear of the building. Mr. Fisher noted the franchise for Country Inns and Suites allows no accesses to the building from the rear due to security reasons. Therefore, parking in the rear wouldn’t be in the best interest of the business. He noted they plan to continue the sidewalk/ bike path required to the south. Mr. Raznoff stated he admired the proposed structure. He suggested planting tall landscaping to screen the views from the interstate and to screen the noise from it. Mr. Fisher noted the franchise has changed from windows that open to windows that don’t open for safety reasons. He stated the franchise prefers large amounts of landscaping for beautification. Chairperson Sorenson suggested they add as much greenery in front of the building as possible to add interest. Mr. Raznoff noted he would not support moving the building towards Valley Center Road, but he suggested adding a pedestrian walkway between the portico and the parking lot. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the addition of a cover over the side entry structure. It was suggested that the overall plan show pedestrian features. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m. __________________________________________ Henry Sorenson, Chairperson Design Review Board